Leaderboard

January 6 indictments just came in for Trump. Federal Grand Jury indictments Based on the history of January 6 sentencing from the judge assigned to this case, he should be beyond fucked.

Looking at the maps of Russian fortifications, I am starting to wonder if the push towards Tokmak is a great a plan as I have previously claimed. Rather, look towards Russia out of Kharkiv. Ukraine holds the high ground above the Seversky Donets river which they can cross on their own territory and then left wheel into Russia where a thin single line of defensive fortifications are holding the line. They could do that without a single piece of western armor and really put the Russians in a tizzy. Then use all of the western kit to punch through where ever the Russians pull troops to deal with the backfield breakthrough. Yes, Medvedev has stated that Russian territory would be defended with nuclear weapons but...... Why? Well, sometimes you need to crap or free up the toilet. If Ukraine doesn't end the "Big Show" with at least one hundred billion dollar gain, which thus far have not materialized, western interest will most certainly morph into pushing for peace at the cost of Ukrainian territory. Why again? Because at the end of this Ukrainian summer we will have accomplished job 1: degrading substantially Russian military potential and thus Russian aspirations, reorienting the geopolitical balance vis a vis the US, Russia and China in our favor, and most importantly showing our adversaries that NATO is not a toothless Tiger. Any one of those wins can be negated by just one of our partners tapping out which, because we are all democracies more or less and often much less, is always on offer.

I'm sure most people know the story behind this controversy, but in case they don't: The song itself is about a gun-totin country boy who is eager to state that "good ol' boys" will fuck up anyone who tries any sort of crime in a small town. It has the usual "ain't gonna take my guns" and "those evil big city type" messages. The problem started when he made the video to accompany it. It showed scenes of violence alteranting with country folk hunting, having family barbeques etc. And he filmed it in front of a courthouse. In 1927, a 16 year old girl was raped in Maury County, Tennessee. The girl's family called the sheriff. The sheriff put bloodhounds on the scent. They could not track the assailant. Then Henry Choate, a black teen visiting from nearby, was seen returning to his grandfather's house that night. He was seized by the good ol' boys in the town and presented to the girl who had been raped. She said it was not him. He was arrested anyway for lack of a better suspect. That night, a mob came and threatened the sheriff's wife with a sledgehammer, demanding Choate. She handed him over to the mob. They tied him to the back of a car and dragged him a few miles, then went to the courthouse to lynch him out a window. No one was ever even indicted for the lynching, despite the killers being well known to everyone in town including the sheriff. His crime was walking while black, and he did indeed "try that in a small town." The good ol' boys "took care of their own" - and lynched him from a courthouse window. Viewers of Aldean's video will be well acquainted with that courthouse - it is the setting for his video. As a comparison, imagine a Muslim singer singing a song about how Allah will always win in the end and punish the unbelievers - with a video for the song filmed at the 9/11 memorial.

I started jumping in 84, and I was always told to add a bit of brake while flying in turbulence. Now, with the new wings design/shape, i am asking myself if this practice is still valid with the Valkyrie, Velocity and others loaded wings. I am asking this question because in paragliding, we were also told to add a bit of brake, but today experts and manufacturers, are advising hands up in case of turbulence. I am flying acro PG and for sure adding even a slight amount of brake will immediately create a collapse. Physics/research tends to support the brake, but these studies are old / based on very old designs. Let me know your thoughts and fly safe.

I am too. People should compete in whatever sports - and with whatever rules - that THEY choose to accept. No one else. If a woman wants to compete in a sport with only biological women? That's fine; she can choose that. If a woman wants to compete in a sport with anyone who expresses a female gender? That's also fine; she can choose that too. You don't get a say.

And even more winning!!! Michigan prosecutors charge Trump allies in felonies involving voting machines, illegal ‘testing’ Matthew DePerno, a Republican lawyer who was endorsed by Trump in an unsuccessful run for Michigan attorney general last year, was charged with undue possession of a voting machine and conspiracy, according to Oakland County court records. Daire Rendon, a former Republican state representative, was charged with conspiracy to commit undue possession of a voting machine and false pretenses. A lawyer listed on court documents as representing Rendon could not be immediately reached for comment by phone.

Best magazine there ever was. Too bad USPA hasn’t ever made anything even 25% as good

Good question; this is a messy topic where we just don't have well validated procedures to use or teach. More so in skydiving than paragliding. These are just my impressions, not necessarily better than others' thoughts. My method - brakes down enough to remove the slack only: As a sort of compromise, for skydiving I try the idea of pulling brakes down only to remove the slack in the brake lines, not to actually significantly brake the canopy. Just to have a tiny bit of pressure that one feels on the brakes, so one will notice if the pressure goes up or down all of a sudden. (Even though it sounds like the latest in paragliding, according to jeanneretjerome, is that they don't even want that little bit of brake pressure -- at least with the latest designs. I'm not familiar with the latest in that field.) Active flying: That allows for easier "active flying" in that one has a better feel for what is happening to the wing (PG terminology) or canopy (skydive terminology). In keeping with the active flying concept, don't worry about the canopy bouncing around a little, long as the canopy stays within some box closely above your head (or where ever it should be based on whatever turning and banking one is doing). One doesn't need to control the canopy in that case, and yanking brakes here and there will likely just make things worse. Have seen that with people being too quick to use toggles on final approach to keep the canopy as stable as possible -- and lose airspeed which can result in a crappy flare especially when one might need extra when trying to land in turbulence, eg a last moment downdraft or loss of headwind. Now if the canopy surges too far forward or tries to turn & dive suddenly, then one can brake as appropriate, as part of the active flying, to keep the canopy roughly in the right area. (But if the canopy surges back, one just has to wait it out as one doesn't actually have 'a little brake on', which one could let go to help accelerate the canopy forward.) But still all that is just a subjective feel for what seems to be decent; it sure is hard to get well validated ideas on flying skydiving canopies. Slight acceleration to pressurize the canopy, by using a gradual turn: I also like that idea of being slightly accelerated in a gentle turn, if one is under a modern canopy, to keep the speed up to 'cut through' turbulence as one might get close to landing time. I seem to recall Brian Germain first pushing the concept. A given size gust will make a smaller change in the angle of attack of a canopy, the faster the canopy is going. Although the 'continuous gradual turn' can conflict with all the strict "90 degree turn only" rules at many DZs, but a little fudging may be allowed as long as one isn't just whipping into a steep swoop turn. (Without going into detail, a 5 mph gust won't change the vectors for speed and angle of attack as much for a 50 mph canopy than a 25 mph canopy. Although it gets messy looking at different situations. Gust downwards? Or horizontally from the front? With the canopy descending at an angle in a glide, how each affects the canopy depends on canopy dive angle, angle of attack, and speed. Lots of vector math to figure out different scenarios!) General aerodynamics & risks of high vs. low angles of attack: Our skydiving canopies are often trimmed fairly nose low for extra speed that translates into more flare power. So they might be at a bit lower angle of attack than paragliding canopies naturally are, I surmise. (Although even the PG canopies aren't expected just to be super floaty at a minimum sink speed -- they want some speed too, to get places and not go backwards in high winds. They can still use speed bar (think front risers) for extra speed, or brakes for slower floaty flying.) So skydiving canopies with a lower angle of attack would take a lot of extra angle of attack before stalling at whatever their upper limit for angle of attack is. With a lower angle of attack, one would then think that skydiving canopies are more susceptible to collapse from a too low angle of attack. Typically it might happen easier just on one side of the canopy than the over the whole front (a full frontal collapse in PG parlance). I think that a low angle of attack collapse (rather than high angle of attack collapse = stall) is the one most likely happen to a jumper, and thus be the greater risk near the ground. Still, our canopies seem more resilient than otherwise expected to frontal collapses, because the airfoils are pretty heavily forward weighted, with a lot of lift near the front of the airfoil. (To some degree that's the case with all airfoils, but with skydiving airfoils more front loaded than some other airfoils). After all, on most skydiving canopies one can front riser on one side pretty suddenly without collapsing the front of the airfoil. (I remember a couple scary old ZP skydiving canopies that were extra light on the front risers and one had to be careful with front risering; plus that made me uncomfortable with them in turbulence.) (PG pilots will I guess note that when PG pilots fly, they can induce leading edge collapses more easily as they don't have combined A & B lines, but can pull down just what are effectively A lines alone.) Slowing down in turbulence for airplanes: They may do it, but that's because of structural limitations. In skydiving, we don't have canopies break from flying too fast. Although certainly the canopy fails by collapsing if it goes to 0g or below in effect, by going to a negative aerodynamic angle of attack and having the nose of the canopy collapse downward. Slow vs. fast in general: In general I'd rather be under a faster canopy that will be less affected by turbulence, 'cutting through it'. But if there is an actual collapse, one would rather be under something big and slow! I'd rather be under half of a Manta than half of a typical Valkyrie. In extreme conditions, even if the big slow canopy is more likely to collapse, it may still be safer under that canopy, with the slower speed and slower accelerations when not flying straight. Dealing with turbulence vs. avoiding it: Sometimes we get hit by turbulence and it would be good to know how best to deal with it. Still, the best strategy is to avoid getting into the situation in the first place. It reminds me a bit about the debates about airlocked canopies, which were all the rage at one time, but for various reasons have faded away. One argument against them being the greatest thing ever, was that sure they might be a little safer in turbulence, but if you were likely to be in turbulence so strong that the canopy might collapse ...it would be better to stay on the ground in the first place, than trying to rely on your airlocked canopy to keep you safe.

Oh yes. Western nations are providing huge amounts of information, in addition to physical supplies. There are reports that Russian satellite imagery is badly degraded, while commercial Western satellite info is being provided to Ukraine. How much military satellite info is being provided is still a secret (speculation runs from 'a lot' to 'just about everything'). Back in the early stages, there were NATO AWACS planes flying standard patterns over Poland and the Baltics. There was a lot of speculation that Ukraine was being given 'real-time' info that they could use to stop the Russians. Putler blustered and threatened, as usual, but anyone who understood the situation and capabilities of both NATO and the Russians knew full well that he'd never even try to attack those planes. In part because he'd fail if he did try.

I agree but I'd add that US intelligence likely has allot to do with those targeting success. I would not be surprised if many NATO countries had their intelligence sections studying every Russian move in and around Ukraine. There are certainly lots of satellites available to feed such analysis.

A couple thoughts: The Ukrainians are doing a very good job of attriting Russia's supplies. They're blowing up ammo depots EVERY DAY. And POL storage. In both occupied Ukraine and in Russia. The Russians are losing incredible amounts of things they desperately need and don't have a whole lot of. Advancing in the face of prepared defenses is hard. Really hard. The Ukrainians are doing a pretty good job of it. They're moving slowly, but trying very hard to not lose any more people or equipment than absolutely necessary. The Ukrainians still haven't committed much of their reserves. The ones that are well equipped and well trained. They're sitting back and waiting for the right opportunity. The Ukrainian general staff has demonstrated their intelligence (smarts), strategic prowess, intelligence (info about the enemy), flexibility, care and concern for their troops and a whole lot of other things. They know what they are doing. I have a pretty solid belief that there will be significant gains by the Ukrainians before the fall rains. Maybe not everything, but I'd bet they'll have Crimea cut off before winter.

And the knuckle-draggers get really cranky when someone points out the music video contains video shot elsewhere on the planet: TikToker who debunked Jason Aldean's 'Try That in a Small Town' video receives racist, violent hate mail In a TikTok video that's gotten at least 1.5 million views, Stark found that two of the clips in the video came from stock footage. One showed a woman flipping off police at at labor day event in Germany and another was a commercial stock clip of a molotov cocktail. ... NBC News also found stock clips of a protest in Montreal, Canada, and a protest in Kyiv, Ukraine.

This is incredible… what’s even more incredible is you did this basically all by yourself! Have you thought about maybe with some more publicity you could get more help/funding? I look forward to videos and fly sight data!

This is a complicated question that you won't find an answer to in a skydiving forum because the paraglider equivalent of an A license obtained in the mountains had spent more time in "turbulence" than almost all skydivers. The reality is as skydivers we jump in ideal conditions with virtually no turbulence. And as such do not understand it, do not measure our wing response to it, and have no basis for knowledge on how to react. To get a real answer you need to understand the technique. Google "active flying". There is a black magic to maintaining the half pound of brake pressure and why it helps manage your wing. But that is for a paraglider. Compared to paragliders, skydiving wings are poorly designed and twitchy. Active piloting takes hours of flying in turbulence to get the muscle memory to not over control the wing and do more harm than good on a paraglider. Having kited a sky wing before I was left pretty dejected at the prospects. I think stick to plan A: don't fly in turbulence.

Biden needs to get way ahead on this by announcing that abortion politics had absolutely nothing to do with the decision and, by the way, please someone tell Tommy Tuberville to go fuck himself.

MAGA - Making Attorneys Get Attorneys

Mostly it depends where in the world the DZ is. In Western Europe they will usually have a vote to decide the issue. In more macho Latin countries each group will choose a champion and it will be decided in a friendly arm wrestling contest. Of course in the USA the group with the best armaments gets to choose, in a tie there will often be a shootout with the survivors doing whatever they want. In other words, it’s pretty much the same as you remember.

It’s difficult to disagree with your response. However, conversations like this one are happening at nearly all 220 of USPA’s affiliate DZs, online and elsewhere. The data reveals some are not getting appropriate training before engaging in high performance landings. Some are also operating way outside USPA’s WL recommendations. Why is that? Weekend warriors like @JumpRu, AFFIs, TIs, and others who are not professional canopy coaches, are giving their opinions and advising jumpers on gear and canopy flight progression. There doesn’t seem to be a consistent, commonly accepted, message when it comes to gear and canopy flight progression. I’d like to point out that my suggestion of focusing on smaller turns on bigger canopies minimizes the kinetic energy in the system and is consistent with the teaching of Flight-1, Brian Germain and other “Big Name” coaches. Many skydivers are taking a course or two from a big name canopy coach and considering that “good enough” to justify flying smaller and smaller canopies and making bigger and bigger turns. Further, the professional “big name” canopy coaches have a financial incentive to ignore canopy choices that fall outside the USPA WL recommendations and move people through their course agenda toward increasingly higher WL and increasingly higher risk approaches and into the extremely dangerous activity of swooping. Lastly, “big name” canopy courses are taught almost exclusively by canopy pilot competitors. It might be time USPA revisit the idea of a canopy pilot coach rating that lays out a USPA endorsed consistent, commonly accepted, message when it comes to gear and canopy flight progression.

Russia screwed up the 20th century pretty badly. Now that they have had a couple decades to recover they are working hard to screw up the 21st as well.

I was around in the early 90s when the toggle vs front riser debate was happening. I learned, first hand, the result of a low 90 toggle turn. I was lucky to have made the mistake on a PD 170 w/ a WL of 1.2 into very soft mud. That day, I also learned why a 90 front riser turn is exponentially less risky than a 90 toggle turn. A front riser turn accelerates half the canopy while a toggle turn stalls half the canopy - leaving you with reduced response while the canopy is recovering. The most dangerous is stall surged 90s that stall the entire canopy low to the ground. How did this become a thing? Well, DZOs said no turns greater than 90*. What did people do? Stall surge a 90*. People got hurt and a 90* approach is now believed to be “super dangerous.” I’ve seen two trends in the “swooping ether.” You must downsize before you start doing high performance landings and you must stall surge the canopy to get a good swoop. I believe these beliefs are contributors to the recent rise in injuries and deaths. Learning how to do a non-surged, straight double front approach, then single 15 front then 30, 45, 60, 75 and then 90 on a WL no greater than 1.2 is way better than what is being taught today of going straight to learning how to stall surge a 270* turn at a WL > 1.2. Stall surged approaches of any degree at any WL are exponentially more dangerous than a simple 90 front.

January 2022 After endless changes, improvements, fixes, trainings of pilots, damages (at certain point paraplane engine failed and we have to replace it - just one of many issues we faced), and discussions with Israeli Aviation Authority, everything was in place for first powered jump. Well, it did not happen … The system refused to run when in air. I made about 10 attempts over period of several months. There was always the same pattern – system was fully checked at workshop, then it was ran on the ground right before takeoff. While everything on the ground was perfect, all attempts in air failed. I stood on the launch shelf, gave engines start command, and … nothing happened. After landing and back in workshop I checked everything and found the reason. One time it was a damaged component in control handle, next time it was malfunctioning cable, next time discovered that I forgot to open fuel valve, next time it was something else. Issues were hiding on the ground, patiently waited until I’m in air and then showed up. As issues were resolved, new ones popped up. One by one I cleaned them. Some issues were more destructive: Results of one of failed attempts. Engines began start sequence, but due to inaccurate position on the launch shelf jet partially hit the shelf and bounced, damaging the wingsuit. I cut damaged parts, and using new fabric rebuilt (sewed) it to the original shape. 2 weeks of work. After repair it was looking more or least as original. I jumped to test it without engines, it was flying perfect. Good. I’m still flying that wingsuit with engines. I also purchased one more ATC from Squirrel, so now I have backup. I then changed shelf design to assure that jet exhaust will go cleanly into the air. Other “interesting” case: We climbed up, I stood on the shelf, give engines command to start, nothing happened (as usual), attempted several times to restart. Then I returned to passenger seat, checked everything I can, stood again on the shelf, tried to start engines, nothing happened. Then, frustrated, I jumped. I understood that engines will not run, but decided at least to check once again how it flies, down. But … attempt to start engines took time, this was prolonged attempt, and … or shit … we did not pay attention that we drifted a lot. Only after the jump I discovered that I absolutely have no idea where I am, and even don’t know what is the direction to landing area. I glided in circles, choose open field and landed. After landing I checked by phone where I’m. 16 km from landing area. In uninhabited place with no roads. It took 4 hours of complicated rescue mission to pick me up from there.

February 2021 Humm … Nobody was ready to take me up ! There are 3 skydiving clubs in Israel. I spoke with all their managers (one of them is my good friend), but it did not work. Israeli airspace is highly congested and heavily regulated. Launching something experimental from the plane requires permits which seemingly impossible to obtain. Clubs did not want to risk their license. I then tried discuss it with hot balloon operators. Same result. I considered rising up by unmanned drone. Well, uncoordinated, in Israel, most probably it would end up by being hit by Patriot missile … Searching for solution was long zig-zagging path. Eventually, only one real option left – paraplane (powered parachute vehicle), with many modifications. So I needed to buy paraplane, learn to fly it, modify it for high altitude and wingsuit launching, find and train pilots who ready to take me up, find how to obtain permits for this. It took 8 months. Paraplane being built in workshop in Israel. Many special modifications were made in order to make it suitable for climbing to high altitude and safe launching of wingsuit jump. We equipped it with powerful Rotax 914 engine, not typical for such kind of vehicle. First version of launching pad. This initial version was modified many times until it has become sufficient for safe jump. Paraplane being tested by manufacturer - High altitude test flight More advanced version of launch pad being mounted on the vehicle

January 2021 I mounted engines on the boots. Added starter battery. Designed and assembled interface circuits, so it became complete system. On the ground system was running perfectly. So, I thought that system is ready for first powered flight. LOL It took another 2.5 years until that happened …

October 2020 Fuel container. I considered many options of container - on the back, or small containers on sides, etc. Finally I decided that container will be on the torso. I thought that it has to be flexible, to match torso movement. Container was implemented as fuel bladder surrounded by ribbed aluminum enclosure and nylon fabric. Fragments of the enclosure - I lined the enclosure with rubber, to protect the bladder. First I prepared small bladder, to test welding method - Actual bladder, 12 liters - Preparation of cover fabric - Almost final, first version - Design and build of the container was a lot of work. After container completion I tried to attach it by zippers to the wingsuit, but found that this attachment was not stable enough. I then prepared harness worn on the body and attached the container, through wingsuit, to the harness. And eventually I have to test it in flight … Note that chest strap of the skydiving rig just goes around it, but has no function in keeping it in place. The container is attached to body harness. I first jumped with container empty. On the next jump I filled it with water to imitate fuel weight. The first jump with the container was preceded by strong anxiety. I did not know what to expect from that big bump on the chest. But in air it behaved perfectly. It did not add any annoying feeling and did not create any difficulties to flight. Canopy deployment, opening and landing also felt quite normal. Good ! Currently (year 2023) I already have two containers, which both have similar dimensions, but different thickness. The capacity of thin container is 6 litters, and capacity of thick one is 12 liters, which supposed to be sufficient for 8 minutes of flight. This is newer design of 6L container –

For Jet Dragon Project I'm using Winx 210. Soft landings. Also, there is 8 mm rubber sole at the bottom of engine mountings.

What canopy are you flying? Because in that configuration, those ceramic bearings are going to take a beating every time you set your feet down.

September 2020 Next I needed control handle – to start and stop engines, and control their thrust. It has to be ergonomic and easily accessible while in flight. First I built several dummy prototypes from cardboard – And the final version – Later, in 2023, I had to completely redesign its concept …

August 2020 Engine mountings should be tested, but I did not want to use real engines for the test, as it could damage them. So I prepared dummy “engines” from plastic buckets filled with weights, for total 13 Kg. And I jumped with it – So far so good !

May 2020 I needed to check that it is possible to carry weight on the foot when flying wingsuit. Combined weight engines, boots, mounting brackets and starter batteries is 13 Kg . My concern was that it will pull legs down and I will stall. I checked it by series of wingsuit jumps while I'm gradually increasing weight attached to the foot. First I attached 4 Kg of weights (packs filled with iron pellets). Jumped, felt normal. Good. Then attached 8 Kg. With 8 Kg I stalled heavily - it was fall rather than flight. On the next attempt I de-arched in order to keep correct pitch and was able to fly wingsuit normally again. Good. Seems that it would be possible to fly with turbines attached to the feet. I had find how to attach the turbines . Key concern was about torsional stress they will apply – their thrust will tend to bend the ankle sideways. Some kind of support was required to avoid it. First “research” version of how to resolve it – I found that tracking shoes did not provide sufficient ankle support. Snowboard boots were better idea – Which leads to implementation looking like this – Engine mounting angle is 18 degrees. In wingsuit flight, legs are stretched apart, this will make thrust vector to be in match with flight direction.

Did you also find out how many neighbours now hated you? :-) Looks like a fun series of photos will follow, as you reveal more of your project.